Information Commissioner’s Office Customer Satisfaction Survey 2009 August 7th 2009
Agenda � S tudy Obj ectives � Approach and S ample Profile � Detailed Findings – Detail on recent complaints/ enquiries – Performance/ satisfaction � S ummary and Recommendations 1
S tudy structured to reflect work conducted in 2006, with sample split to cover three areas of the business � Research required among individuals submitting written enquiries / complaints to assess: Service Delivery Communications Channels Staff � S at isfaction � Channels used � Ease of access � Comparison with others � Use of website � Attitude � Improvements � Progress reports � Knowledge � Understanding � Clarity of response � Empathy � Timeliness � Tone / grammar � Credibility � Data reported by the three main groups: – Data Protection, Freedom of Information, Enquiries (the latter being a new sample for 2009) 2
A three stage approach taken to ensure full coverage of the issues IMMERS ION QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE All customers asked for Full briefing session with ICO 420 telephone interviews permission to recontact (86% teams 263 DP, 102 FOI, 55 agreed) Individual interviews with Enquiries team leaders Sample provided by ICO, all 30 telephone follow-up closed cases (last 3 months interviews conducted by for DP/Enq, last 6 months Jigsaw (15-20 minutes) FOI) Ensure team understanding All pre-notified and TPS Cross section of Customers Feed into survey design applied covered Influence on timing of survey 146 Customers (6.2% ) chose to opt out of the survey Interviews conducted 8 th – Fieldwork 20 th – 30 th April 17 th June 2009 2009 3
4 Detailed Findings - Profile of Individuals - - Contact Profile -
Key Performance Indicators 2009 Overall rating of quality of service 14% 21% 21% 18% 24% 3% Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor DK/ NA 35% 41% 55% A Customer Satisfaction Index has also been created using multiple questions within the survey. For 2009, the index score (out of 100) is: 48 Q18a. Overall, how would you rat e t he qualit y of service provided t o you by t he ICO in relat ion t o enquiries or complaint s submit t ed in writ ing? Base: All - (n=420) Where figures do not add up exact ly, this is due to rounding 5
S ummary of Profile and Contact Summary of Contact Profile Summary � For over two-thirds (71% ), this was kew towards MALES (73% � S ), their FIRST CONTACT especially for FOI (88% ) � For the vast maj ority (86% ) they � Range of ages, but skew is had only submitted ONE ENQUIRY/ COMPLAINT in the period being OLDER (only 28% under 40) assessed – FOI skew to 50+ (59% ) � The vast maj ority (89% ) were in kew towards ABC1 (68% contact on their OWN BEHALF � S ) – If on behalf of others, it tended to be � High proportion WORKING for a family member or employer – The maj ority of contacts were (66% ), with many of the rest personal retired (18% ) � The vast maj ority (93% ) of cases for DP and FOI were COMPLAINTS 6
S ummary of Profile and Contact Contact Specifics Reasons for Contact � DP customers displayed WIDE � Around a third (35% ) knew how to VARIETY of contact reasons make contact – Unsolicited contact (30% ) – Higher among FOI contacts (50% ) – Personal details released (18% ) – Only a minority (17% ) had problems – Access to information (15% ) making contact � FOI contact MORE FOCUSED – Non release of information (52% ) � Wide variation in number of items � Organisations complained about of correspondence submit ted are as expected – 3.5 for FOI contacts – DP complaints centre on – 2.3 (down from 2.8) for DP contacts COMMERCIAL COMPANIES (56% ) and – 1.7 for enquiries FINANCIAL (14% ) – FOI complaints centre on LAs (44% ) and GOV. DEPTS (33% ) 7
Motivation to contact ICO varies across FOI and DP (Qual) � FOI CUSTOMERS often see themselves as representing themselves and others � “ Warrior Citizens” - want to beat the system � Likely to have previous contact / experience � S ome believe they have ‘ friend’ st atus (t hrough volume of contact) � Greater awareness of the Act results in greater frustrations with outcomes – S ubmitting more specific enquiries in order to reduce failure � For DP CUSTOMERS , concern was with potential identity theft and fraud on credit cards – Want ammunition/ backing to correct wrong entries/ classifications – Enquiries seen as simple to correct, but highly worrying / inconvenient 8
Expectations from ICO generally better than 2006 (Qual) A clearer expectation/understanding of ICO’s role since 2006 � Key expectations = solve problems and be on the side of the customer � DP customers less demanding than FOI – Expected ICO to identify breaches and to support their cause against the offending organisation � S ome FOI individuals anticipated red tape and delays � Others looking for help to compile their case for the adj udicator – Ensuring all information was complete – Questions crystal clear and directional 9
Multiple channel usage often involved, with importance of website highlighted by claimed usage. Contact in addition to written communication with ICO 67% (+13% ) Searched ICO w ebsite 65% 76% 38% (-7% ) Data Protection 42% Phone contact w ith ICO Freedom of Information 33% Enquiry (+10% ) 33% Wide variety of organisations contacted. Received help/ advice from 31% Other govt department/ regulatory body other companies/ organisations 22% most commonly mentioned (by 8% of total) Q7/ Q10a-b/ Q10c-d. Have any of your writ t en complaint s/ enquiries in t he last 3/ 6 mont hs involved… receiving help or advice from ot her companies, organisat ions, employers or Government depart ment s? t elephone conversat ions wit h st aff at t he ICO? searching t he ICO websit e? Base: All - DP (n=263), FOI (n=102), Enquiry (n=55) 10
The website is a common start point for customers and is generally well regarded. 84% of website visitors did so before contacting ICO Rating of website % Exc/ Very/ Good 7% 28% 38% 14% 8% 4% 73% Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor DK/ NA Q10e. And was t hat suggest ed by someone from t he ICO? Q10f. Did you visit t he websit e before cont act ing t he ICO? Q10g. And how would you rat e t he websit e, would you say it was … . ? Base: All cont act ing websit e - DP (n=175), FOI (n=67), Enquiry (n=42) Where figures do not add up exact ly, this is due to rounding 11
Response time for DP improved since 2006 where customers acknowledge case closed, but proportion claiming not resolved has increased from 0% to 21% . High proportion claim FOI cases not resolved. Speed of initial acknowledgement ’ 09 ‘ 06 % 5 or less days Data Protection 15% 14% 54% 6% 10% 30% 21% Freedom of Information 18% 12% 49% 3% 19% 29% Enquiry 22% 18% 31% 7% 22% 40% Within 48 hours 2-5 days 6+ days Never received DK/ NA Average # Total time taken for response days (2006) Data Protection 14% 12% 10% 37% 21% 6% 87 (139) Freedom of Information 14% 8% 8% 25% 39% 7% 149 Enquiry 24% 13% 18% 24% 13% 9% 48 1 - 14 days 15 - 28 days 29 - 42 days 43+ days Not resolved yet DK/ NA 84% of unresolved issues were submitted 43+ days ago 58% of those waiting 3 mths+ chased progress on their case 52% of those waiting 3 mths+ rec’ d some correspondence from ICO Q14/ Q15a-b/ Q15c/ Q15e. Base: All - DP (n=263), FOI (n=102), Enquiry (n=55) Where figures do not add up exact ly, this is due to rounding 12
13 Detailed Findings - Service Delivery -
Overall rating is mixed for DP/ FOI, although many feel performance is better than other organisations. ’ 09 ‘ 06 Overall rating of quality of service % Exc/ Very/ Good Data Protection 11% 23% 21% 19% 24% 3% 55% 56% 15% 13% 21% 21% 27% 4% Freedom of Information 48% Enquiry 24% 27% 22% 7% 18% 2% 73% Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor DK/ NA Rating in comparison to others % Better Data Protection 20% 18% 25% 15% 13% 10% 38% 38% Freedom of Information 22% 18% 27% 10% 17% 7% 39% Enquiry 35% 16% 25% 5% 13% 5% 51% A lot better Little better Same Little worse Lot worse DK/ NA Q18a. Overall, how would you rat e t he qualit y of service provided t o you by t he ICO in relat ion t o enquiries or complaint s submit t ed in writ ing? Q18b. And how would you compare t he qualit y of service provided by t he ICO wit h t hat of ot her organisat ions you have dealt wit h generally? Base: All - DP (n=263), FOI (n=102), Enquiry (n=55) Where figures do not add up exact ly, this is due to rounding 14
Comparisons with other organisations tend to be mixed (Qual) ICO often seen as offering a better overall service than other organisations; namely banks, utilities and local authorities/councils � ICO seen as more responsive and ‘ professional’ – “ They’ re very personable and helpful when you deal wit h t hem” � Also easier to deal with as no ulterior motive Some FOI customers were less than enthusiastic on ICO’s behalf � “ By no means t he worst , but not t he best ” Some found ICO too bogged down with procedure � “ They’ re like a st uffy old solicit or’ s office” � “ All public sect or offices are slow and j obswort h” 15
Recommend
More recommend
